When the first film came out, people obviously compared "The Hunger Games" to "Battle Royale." Both works pitted children fighting against each other to the death.

Understandable.

But "Star Wars"?

I wasn't convinced at first — I come from a family of pretty big "Star Wars" fans — but the more I think about it, I can see the parallels.

Are people reaching?

"Star Wars" is about a ragtag group of rebels trying to take down the evil empire. "The Hunger Games" is about a group of rebels trying to take down the Capitol.

Darth Vader strikes fear in all the galaxy, while President Snow (Donald Sutherland) does the same to his country in style, without the need of a bulky breathing apparatus.
Star Wars / Lucasfilm

Both also have a penchant for capes and black gloves.
Lionsgate
Once you get past the kid-killing in the original "Hunger Games," you realize this isn't a story about killing children, but one about rebellion. At the end of "Catching Fire" you learn the victors of the previous "Hunger Games" are conspiring to secretly take down the Capitol and its president, and Katniss will be their leader, their Luke Skywalker if you will (or at the least, their symbol).

The ending of "Empire Strikes Back" had Han Solo kidnapped by the Empire and Luke Skywalker saved by a rebel ship. The ending of "Catching Fire" had Peeta captured by the Capitol and Katniss Everdeen saved by a rebel ship flying to the outskirts of Panem to figure out how to save Peeta.

The biggest difference? One was frozen in carbonite.
Star Wars screencap

Peeta's just going to be tortured by the Capitol folk.
Murray Close / Lionsgate

Many reviews were already comparing the Capitol militants to "Star Wars" Stormtroopers.